DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION) OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA and COUNCIL 215, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

United States of America

BEFORE THE FEDERAL SERVICE IMPASSES PANEL

In the Matter of

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION)

OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA

and

COUNCIL 215, AMERICAN FEDERATION

OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

Case No. 90 FSIP 120

DECISION AND ORDER

Council 215, American Federation of Government Employees,
AFL-CIO (Union) filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses
Panel (Panel) to consider a negotiation impasse under section 7119 of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) between it and the
Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Office
of Hearings and Appeals, Falls Church, Virginia (Employer).

After investigation of the request for assistance, the Panel
directed the parties to meet informally with Staff Associate Ellen J. Kolansky
for the purpose of resolving the issues at impasse. The parties were advised
that if no settlement were reached, Mrs. Kolansky was to notify the Pane' of the
status of the dispute, including the parties' final offers and her
recommendations for resolving the matter. After considering this information,
the Panel would taste whatever action it deemed appropriate to resolve the
impasse.

Mrs. Kolansky met with the parties on June 19 and 20, 1990.
During the conference, two of the three issues were resolved. Accordingly, she
reported to the Panel on the remaining issue based on the record developed by
the parties. The Panel has now considered the entire record, including her
recommendations for settlement.

BACKGROUND

The Employer, a component of the Social Security;
Administration (SSA), adjudicates appeals of denials c' 2 retirement, medicare,
and disability claims by SSA, and defends appeals of its decisions in the
Federal courts. Besides the headquarters office, it maintains 142 hearing
offices in 10 regions nationwide (124 have bargaining-unit employees), word processing and development
centers, and Hyatt offices(1) at several locations. Although the general public
does not visit these offices, attorneys, expert witnesses, and claimants do. The
Union represents approximately 2,218 employees who work as paralegals, clerks,
computer and programming specialists, and hearing assistants. They are a part of
a nationwide consolidated bargaining unit represented by the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. The parties' relationship is governed by a master labor agreement which
became effective in January 1990.

For over 15 years, flexitime schedules have been available to
most employees at the Office of Hearings and Appeals. This is the last of the
six SSA components to negotiate alternative work schedules under a provision in
the master agreement. Prior to the informal conference, the parties agreed that
headquarters employees and decision writers in the field would be permitted to
select a5-4-9 schedule. During the conference, the parties agreed on a pilot
program for credit hours(2) with participation by: (1) certain headquarters
offices; (2) 30 field hearings and appeals offices; (3) 1 Hyatt office; (4) 1
word processing center; and (5) 1 processing center. They also agreed that time
clocks would not be used.

ISSUE AT IMPASSE

The issue concerns the designation of field Hearings and
Appeals Offices permitted to participate in the 5-4-D compressed work schedule
plan.

1. The Employer's Proposal

The Employer proposes that "offices in the nation with
26 or more bargaining-unit employees, based on staffing as of June 21, 1990,
will be allowed to participate in the 5-4-9 [p]lan. In addition, the Employer will designate an office from each
[of the three regions] without an office of 26 or more bargaining[-]unit
employees." Word processing centers, processing centers, and Hyatt offices
would not be included.

In support of its proposal, it asserts that the
mission-related goals of good public service and adequate support during appeals
hearings held by administrative law judges would be met by limiting
participation to larger offices. Its proposal would prevent disruptions to
service and delays in case processing since more employees would be present to
fill in for those absent on days off. Strain on those at work also could be kept
under better control. Since it predicts that at least 25 percent of employees
would have the opportunity to participate when the effect of the 5-4-9 option on
the mission is unknown, this is a generous offer. Although the Union suggests
that 9-hour days would permit an extension of hearing times to the late
afternoon, the Employer doubts that the judges would be amenable to such
changes. Finally, it objects to the 5-4-9 option for large offices such as the
word processing ,centers where employees work shifts.

2. The Union's Proposal

Under its proposal, employees working in the following
offices would have the option to participate in 5-4-9: (1) 2 processing centers,
3 Hyatt class-action processing centers, and 4 word-processing centers; (2)
field hearing offices with 21 or more employees as of the pay period ending July
14, 1990; and (3) 1 office in Region 1. A semi-annual review would be conducted
to determine whether other offices had reached the requisite size, and,
therefore, could participate. Such additions would be made effective the
following quarter.

The Union asserts that the option would not affect the
scheduling of hearings in smaller offices since such hearings are arranged
months in advance. Furthermore, there is another provision of their agreement
which would ensure adequate staffing by requiring that only 15 percent of the
employees would be permitted to take their day off at any given time. Others, of
course, might be absent on scheduled leave. Moreover, employees in smaller
offices are more accustomed to filling in for each other, hearings could be held
later in the day, and morale would be improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Having considered the evidence and arguments in this case, we
conclude that the issue should be resolved by adopting a compromise provision
based on the Employer's proposal, modified to permit an annual review of office
size to determine whether or not offices have increased to 26 {or
bargaining-unit employees, and would, therefore, qualify to participate in the
5-4-9 option. This resolution, in our view, represents an